Added Noise: I Fear for Our Country’s Future…

…or, “How This Happened”:

OK, I am taking an online class through the local community college on computers and the Interwebs. One of the components of the class is a Discussion Board. The prof poses an issue and we are to respond, and, she hopes, have a meaningful discussion. The first prompt from her was this:

PROMPT: Gossip Sites...
A recent trend on college campuses today is the use of campus gossip sites, where students can post campus related news, rumors, and basic gossip. These sites were originally set up to promote free speech and to allow participants to publish comments anonymously without repercussions from school administrators, professors, and other officials. However, they are now being used to post vicious comments about others.

What do you think of campus gossip sites?
Is it ethical to post a rumor about another individual on these sites? How would you feel if you read a posting about yourself on a gossip site?
School administrators cannot regulate the content since the sites are not sponsored or run by the college, and federal law prohibits Web hosts from being liable for the content posted by its users. Is this ethical?
What if a posting leads to a criminal act, such as a rape, murder, or suicide? Who, if anyone, should be held responsible

I read the first few posts and my jaw dropped. I discussed with her the willingness of nearly all of the respondents to simply ignore or repeal the First Amendment and throw offenders in jail. Her response was that “they’re young”. And then she told me to “stir things up.” So I did. Here is part of the result. You will be shocked at the complete lack of thought and working knowledge of how this country works.

Discussion begins:

Thread: Free speech
Post: Free speech
Author: DaveyNC

Posted Date: June 3, 2010 1:26 PM
Status: Published

What about free speech? I find it very hard to believe that so many who have posted so far are willing to turn over their right to free speech to the federal government. While malicious gossip is certainly not protected by the 1st Amendment, why would you want to allow the government to decide what is and is not gossip?

Should a government censor punish someone who, for instance, posts that "So-and-so is pregnant!" How would the censor (a horrific notion) decide whether that is gossip or true? Demand a pregnancy test?

There are libel and slander laws to take care of this sort of thing. So long as "gossip sites" remain within those bounds, the government needs to stay out of it. If you fear gossip, then do not engage in it yourself or frequent websites that do not moderate comments.

Reply Quote Mark as Unread

Thread: Free speech
Post: RE: Free speech
Author: Future Voter

Posted Date: June 6, 2010 1:24 AM
Status: Published

There was a big deal a while back where chinese actor Jackie Chan was asked his oppinion on Chinese democracy. He replied that some people can not handle freedom. While his words were taken out of context, he was referring to previous situations where his people were in a state of turmoil and needed much of their god given rights revoked. That's where such strict laws originated in their country. When people hide behind the constitution to defend their less than noble actions, I always feel like the constitution needs a revision. Convicted sex offenders are required to identify themselves as such by law, but neo Nazi webmasters can anonymously preach hate to the masses while protected by the constitution. These days the constitution only protects the corrupt. I for one agree with Jackie, the misuse of anything can lead to turmoil, freedom of speech is no different.

Reply Quote Mark as Unread

Thread: Free speech
Post: RE: Free speech
Author: DaveyNC

Posted Date: June 6, 2010 8:38 AM
Status: Published

But Future Voter, you understand that an over-riding purpose of the Constitution in general and the First Amendment in particular is to protect unpopular speech, right? Isn't the essence of a democracy the ability to speak out against the majority? Turmoil is what a democracy is all about.

And you just violated Godwin's law. http://goo.gl/oDl6

I simply reject the notion that the constitution "only protects the corrupt" nor do I accept that some people can not handle freedom. Who should make the decision about who gets to be free and who doesn't? I don't think you realize it, but you just advocated reinstituting slavery. I'd hate to live in a country where someone else decides how much freedom I get to enjoy.

Reply Quote Mark as Unread

Thread: Free speech
Post: RE: Free speech
Author: DaveyNC

Posted Date: June 6, 2010 2:43 PM
Status: Published

What you are telling me is that slaves had their rights revoked due to their own misuse of them? That's a very interesting take on things. I would be very grateful to find out what exactly they did to deserve such action. Surely you have proof. I understand what the first amendment was meant for, but no one can refute the fact that since it's conception it has been counter productive. You can really only benifit if you're trying to beat a prison sentence or cause harm to others. If you can censor my music and films, why protect slanderers and the like?

The amount of freedom you have is already in question. Try screaming fire in a packed movie theatre. See how well that works out for you. The general consensus is that if your words cause a stampede of frightened people and someone gets hurt, it's your fault. By the way, I laughed out loud at Godwin's Law. If I had a dime for every time I was called a racist in a debate(not saying you did of course, just comparing it to the use of Nazi's in debates), even about something as trivial as the Tiger Woods scandal, I would have enough money to build a time machine and go back in time to have the word Nazi removed from the English language. Wow, I used Nazi three times in two replies...I must be a bad debator according to Godwins Law. I simply gave an example of the double standard, next time I'll use one of the other hate groups that hide behind the constitution.

The constitution only protects the corrupt. I will stand by that until I see otherwise.

Reply Quote Mark as Unread

Thread: Free speech
Post: RE: Free speech
Author: DaveyNC

Posted Date: June 6, 2010 9:08 PM
Status: Published

I am stunned at your assessment of the first amendment as counter-productive. Speechless. Without the first amendment, we would have something like Al Jazeera, the Arab TV network that only broadcasts what its leaders tell it to. The only thing, other than the Constitution itself, that holds the government at bay is our freedom of speech and freedom of the press. There is no freedom of speech in places like North Korea, Cuba and China and those people live in squalor.

I didn't say that slaves had their rights revoked due to their own misuse. You did, when you quoted Jackie Chan. This statement, " He replied that some people can not handle freedom. While his words were taken out of context, he was referring to previous situations where his people were in a state of turmoil and needed much of their god given rights revoked." seems to advocate eliminating rights for those who cannot handle them. Who decides who should have their rights revoked? You? Me?

The rights that the Constitution protect are "inalienable"; that is, we are born with them, they are not given to us by the government. And since the govt. didn't give them to us, they can't revoke them. The government, by definition, is the only entity that could be guilty of censorship and it cannot censor your music, your movies, your speech and any protests you may lodge against the government. That is a right that is nearly unique in all the world and must be preserved at all costs.

I've run too long here, but I remain stunned by your characterization of the First Amendment. Let me suggest a book for you, and anyone else in here who may be thinking the same: http://goo.gl/seas

Reply Quote Mark as Unread

Thread: Free speech
Post: RE: Free speech
Author: Future Voter

Posted Date: June 7, 2010 7:25 PM
Status: Published

It would in fact be a government matter to decide to revise the constitution. I mean, the complaints of citizens like myself aren't enough to fix anything, and I do mean fix, as many of the amendments are themselves broken.

When you say that it sounds like I'm advocating slavery, that my ideas resemble other countries with very little rights to begin with then it is clear my message was ill recieved. Our "system" allows convicted fellons to have their rights revoked. Not because we are run by bad people, but because these men/women deserved it. There is no freedom of assembly in prison, no right to bear arms, and certainly no freedom. It wouldn't be a stretch to force shock jocs and anyone else making a blatant attempt to cause an uproar to watch their speech closely or prepare to have access to online forums and other means of communication monitored or revoked without reconsideration.

As for who would decide who is punished, yes, you and I would. The people. Let's say you ran a sports fan web page where members of your page constantly bash other teams or make accusations that a certain team cheats. With my law in place citizens could file a complaint and this would be the last online site you ever ran, all because patrons of your site were expressing their "inalienable rights." You can say you don't like a team, but to say that team sucks would be a violation punishable by law.

One more thing, nothing is inalienable, not in this world.

Reply Quote Mark as Unread

Thread: Free speech
Post: RE: Free speech
Author: DaveyNC

Posted Date: June 8, 2010 10:52 PM
Status: Published

I am simply gobsmacked by your response, Future Voter.

I refer to the second paragraph, last sentence in your comment above. You just advocated that the US use the exact same approach to online communications that China, North Korea and Cuba use, as well as nearly every dictatorship on the planet. All of these countries are among the very worst violators of human rights in the world. Why on earth would you want to place the US in such company? One of the things, maybe the main thing, that keeps citizens in the US safe is the ability to speak out against tyranny without fear of being silenced or punished by the government.

And then you go on to advocate, in the third paragraph, the revocation of an individual's right to free speech and ability to earn a living in his chosen field merely because someone filed a complaint. You have completely nullified due process of law over trash talking on a sports site.

It is not a government (if by "government”, you mean the Federal government) matter to revise the Constitution. That can only be done via the passing of amendments by the various States. The amendments can only be passed, or ratified, by the States via a vote or a convention that they hold. This requires the electorate to approve. See here: http://goo.gl/sw0I

I'd like to think that you are simply having a hard time expressing your views. But I don't think so.